9 2 mins 15 yrs

brownPA250906_228x242.jpgLet’s cut to the chase concerning the meeting between UK PM Gordon Brown and President Bush yesterday. Discussing the future of UK troops in Iraq Brown has told Bush he would not delay their exit in order to show unity with the United States. After four hours of talks with the US President at his Camp David retreat, Brown told a joint press conference he would make a Commons statement in October on the future of the 5,500 British troops in the Basra region. The Bush administration has been nervous that a full British withdrawal would add to the criticism. But Mr Brown made clear – and President Bush accepted – that Britain would go its own way, even if that gave the impression the two countries were diverging.

And that’s EXACTLY what Al Queda want to see. Divide and Conquer.

Brown has no stomach to FIGHT militant Islam, he would much prefer to find a way to instigate a conflict resolution process with them, involving financial aid no doubt. He does NOT get it in the way that Blair did. The Jihadists seek to cower us into splitting with our allies and Brown will give them what they want. This will give him excellent media headlines and expect those poll numbers to rise even further. Life will be good under Gordon – until the Jihadists strike again, and again….and then what? Brown makes me nauseous. When the US and UK SHOULD be totally united, he’s making a virtue out of the fact that he will make us separate. 

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

9 thoughts on “SIDE BY SIDE BUT NOT UNITED….

  1. Brown sees Afghanistan as the war that must be won against Al Quaida and their allies the Taliban. The 5,000 British troops in Iraq would be much more useful there.

  2. David

    For curiosity, what’s Gordon Brown’s take on the Afghan War? Is he looking to pull out of there too?

    Always worth putting yourself in the enemy’s (mismatched) shoes I think.

    In this case that’s actually quite fun.

    They have to look every day at a political and economic philosophy that essentially owns the world.

    They have to look every day at a society that despite their best efforts mainly ignores them.

    They have to look every day at a society that enjoys life and has a high standard of living.

    They on the other hand live in deserts and caves, Excepting oil their sponsor nations have a miniscule GDP and the oil runs out in say 50 years.

    Thay have no Carrier Battle Groups.

    They have no Nuclear weapons.

    Who’s winning? 🙂

  3. That is one way of looking at it. The other, is why is Bush keeping our troops in? At this juncture an immediate withdrawal is out of the question, but the lack of planning for a withdrawal seems almost as fundamental as the lack of planning for the occupation.

  4. mahons

    ‘,,,why is Bush keeping our troops in?’

    I think it’s to hold the ring while the Iraqis train up. That couples with possibly some feeling that the Iraqi population are deserving of US support.

    Don’t really see any other reasons. The national interest of the US wouldn’t be particularly adversely impacted by a withdrawal.

    Maybe he just want to stick a possible President Obama with the decision. 🙂

  5. Jeff: I think sticking his successor with the decision (and political impact) is the primary goal.

    The Iraqi units are actually down in numbers. They are not going to be taking over in the sense that they’ve been portrayed. And the amount of what we’ve built there and what the Iraqi government refuses to take over runs into insane amounts of wasted money.

    As for the civilian population, that is the main imperative in my mind why an immediate withdrawl is impossible. The number of refugees is shocking and depressing.

  6. The sooner they get on with formal partition the better. It’s going to be a re-run of India 1947 with the added complication of a Turkish invasion of the Kurd area. In other words a complete bloodbath, but relatively stable states should eventually emerge. The Shia state will be a client of Iran and the Sunni one will be aligned with the Saudis, who are guilty of aiding the sunni insurrection. I read at the weekend that the US estimates that 60% of the suicide bombers come across the border from Saudi Arabia.

  7. "I read at the weekend that the US estimates that 60% of the suicide bombers come across the border from Saudi Arabia."

    Would that be Saudi Arabia, the US’s ‘ally’?

  8. Mahons

    What do you think the ‘political impact’ will be on a President who orders a withdrawal?

    Would there be anything other than general rejoicing?

    Nice to see the Iraqi Parliament enthusiastically adopt at least one facet of democratic government – the one month recess!

    Peter – I think a partition is coming too. Not though seeing a Turkish invasion of the Kurd area. Wouldn’t look good for their EU membership application.:)

    Allan – (I have to be so careful not to mistype the last letter of your username) Saudi Arabia…everybody’s ally…Al-Yamamah and recently BAe…

  9. Mahons

    OK, now I know why George Bush is keeping troops in Iraq.

    After Wednesday’s stirring oratory from Obama and Hillary on how they’d fight terrorists in Afghanistan and attack terrorists in Pakistan with or without Pakistani government approval, it’s obvious.

    Keeping troops in Iraq is the only way GWB can distinguish himself from Democrats. 🙂

    Wonder what the ‘Surge’ report will say in one short month?

    If there’s even a glimmer of hope, will the Democrat contenders shift position on Iraq too?

Comments are closed.